CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Personalized Measures of Consumption and Development in the Context of Biodiversity Conservation: Connecting the Ecological Footprint Calculation with the Human Footprint Map

Sanderson, Eric W.·2013·Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation
DOI 10.1002/9781118490747.ch9
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The most important component of biodiversity to monitor may be us, the human species. Two key measures of human impact on the biosphere are denoted metaphorically as footprints: the human footprint map and the ecological footprint calculation. Both the human footprint map and the ecological footprint calculation have had important impacts on conservation policy and public education efforts, but these two similar sounding conservation tools actually represent two quite different approaches to measuring development and consumption, starting from different premises and yielding different, but complementary, measures. This chapter provides a path of connection between the ecological footprint and the human footprint, which eventually could lead to a personalized, spatialized ecological human footprint. It also discusses an equivalency between the ecological footprint and the human footprint map at the national scale, matching up consumption to production, ecological footprint’s global hectare (gha) to the human footprint’s human influence index (HII).

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/9781118490747.ch9

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • With GIS connectivity models, efforts to measure human impacts on the environment have resulted in modelling indices such as HFI and SHFI.

    “With GIS connectivity models, efforts to measure the human impacts upon the environment have resulted in modelling indices such as the HFI (Human Footprint Index) that use a composite of variables to assess the levels of human disturbance on a particular ecosystem and SHFI (Spatial Human Footprint Index) (Sanderson 2013; Correa Ayram et al. 2017).”

    From Exploratory GIS: modelling past land use and occupancy with functional connectivity, willandra lakes region world heritage area, NSW, australia (2022) · cites this paper as Sanderson 2013

  • With GIS connectivity models, efforts to measure the human impacts upon the environment have resulted in modelling indices such as the HFI and SHFI that use a composite of variables to assess levels of human disturbance on a particular ecosystem.

    “With GIS connectivity models, efforts to measure the human impacts upon the environment have resulted in modelling indices such as the HFI (Human Footprint Index) that use a composite of variables to assess the levels of human disturbance on a particular ecosystem and SHFI (Spatial Human Footprint Index) (Sanderson 2013; Correa Ayram et al. 2017).”

    From Exploratory GIS: modelling past land use and occupancy with functional connectivity, willandra lakes region world heritage area, NSW, australia (2022) · cites this paper as Sanderson 2013

  • Efforts to measure human impacts on the environment with GIS connectivity models have produced indices such as the Human Footprint Index (HFI) and Spatial Human Footprint Index (SHFI), which use a composite of variables to assess human disturbance on an ecosystem.

    “With GIS connectivity models, efforts to measure the human impacts upon the environment have resulted in modelling indices such as the HFI (Human Footprint Index) that use a composite of variables to assess the levels of human disturbance on a particular ecosystem and SHFI (Spatial Human Footprint Index)”

    From Exploratory GIS: modelling past land use and occupancy with functional connectivity, willandra lakes region world heritage area, NSW, australia (2022) · cites this paper as Sanderson 2013

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 39

  1. Aplet G. Thomson J. andWilbert M. (2000) Indicators of wildness: using attributes of the land to assess the context of wilderness. In:McCool S.F. Cole D.N. Borrie W.T. O'Loughlin J. (eds) Wilderness Science in a Time of Change Vol. 2: Wilderness within the Context of Larger Systems. Conference proceedings 23–27 May 1999 Missoula MT. USDA US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Ogden Utah Proceedings RMRS‐P‐15 pp.89–98.
  2. 10.1126/science.293.5532.1045b · DOI
  3. 10.1126/science.1127609 · DOI · Paper page
  4. 10.1126/science.291.5501.125 · DOI
  5. 10.1016/j.biocon.2006.08.024 · DOI
  6. Carver S., 2002, Wilderness attribute mapping in the United Kingdom, International Journal of Wilderness, 8, 24
  7. Colchester M., 1994, Salvaging Nature: Indigenous Peoples, Protected Areas and Biodiversity Conservation
  8. Cronon W. (1995)The trouble with wilderness; or getting back to the wrong nature. In:Uncommon Ground: Rethinking the Human Place in Nature. W.W. Norton and Co. New York pp.69–90.
  9. Elvidge C., 1997, Mapping city lights with nighttime lights data from the DMSP Operational Linescan System, Photogrammetric Engineering and Remote Sensing, 63, 772
  10. Ewing B., 2008, Calculation Methodology for the National Footprint Accounts
  11. 10.1146/annurev.ecolsys.39.110707.173529 · DOI
  12. Global Footprint Network(2009b)National Footprint Accounts 2008 Edition—Data Year 2005 (Academic Edition). Global Footprint Network Oakland CA. Available at:www.footprintnetwork.org.
  13. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.013 · DOI
  14. 10.1126/science.1149345 · DOI · Paper page
  15. Hannah L., 1994, A preliminary inventory of human disturbance of world ecosystems, Ambio, 23, 246
  16. 10.1038/nature06536 · DOI · Paper page
  17. Kitzes J., 2008, Guidebook to the National Footprint Accounts: 2008 Edition
  18. Leslie R., 1995, National Wilderness Inventory Handbook of Procedures, Content and Usage
  19. 10.1890/07-0480.1 · DOI
  20. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.04.001 · DOI
  21. 10.1007/978-1-4615-1261-5 · DOI
  22. J. Loh M. Wackernagel 2004 UK Cambridge
  23. 10.1080/014311600210191 · DOI
  24. McCloskey M., 1989, A reconnaissance‐level inventory of the amount of wilderness remaining in the world, Ambio, 8, 221
  25. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005, Ecosystems and Human Well‐being: Biodiversity Synthesis
  26. 10.1073/pnas.1732458100 · DOI
  27. 10.1016/j.landusepol.2003.10.009 · DOI
  28. Nelson M.P., 2008, The Wilderness Debate Rages on: Continuing the Great New Wilderness Debate
  29. 10.1017/S0030605308001889 · DOI
  30. 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0.CO;2 · DOI
  31. Sanderson E.W., 2006, The Human Footprint: Challenges for Wilderness and Biodiversity
  32. Environment Programme UN, 2001, GLOBIO: Global Methodology for Mapping Human Impacts on the Biosphere
  33. Venetoulis J., 2006, Refining the Ecological Footprint
  34. Wackernagel M. (1994) Ecological footprint and appropriated carrying capacity: a tool for planning toward sustainability. PhD thesis School of Community and Regional Planning. The University of British Columbia Vancouver BC.
  35. Wackernagel M., 1996, Our Ecological Footprint: Reducing Human Impact on the Earth
  36. 10.1016/S0921-8009(98)90063-5 · DOI
  37. Wackernagel M., 2006, National Footprint and Biocapacity Accounts 2005: The underlying calculation method
  38. Wilson E.O., 2003, The Future of Life
  39. 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2008.04.005 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Sanderson, E. W.
Venue
Biodiversity Monitoring and Conservation
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-02-25
Pages
189-209
DOI
10.1002/9781118490747.ch9
Cited by
3
References
2
Language
en
Licence
doi.wiley.com/10.1002/tdm_license_1.1 (tdm)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review